No, what is devoid of factual content is the argument that gun control laws do not reduce the amount of gun crimes. It is a tired and discredited position that keeps getting pulled out by gun advocates as reasons why we should not start to limit the amount of firearms in the US. What is fact is the overwhelming data that shows fewer guns result in fewer gun crimes and fewer gun deaths. The arguments that unarmed civilians will be overrun by armed thugs is a fantasy that has never played out anywhere in the world. What has happened in places where the number of guns has been reduced is gun crimes have gone down.

"I really want a gun and don't feel safe without one" is not the type of argument on which a society can build itself. And, where does it stop? I'm afraid if I don't have a nuke then only government and terrorists will have one. And remember, nukes don't annihilate cities, kill millions of people and irradiate areas so they are not habitable for decades, people do. In the proper hands of a law abiding citizen, a nuclear weapon is no more dangerous than a butter knife is. So, why can't I have one?

It's an obviously ridiculous argument that somehow has been allowed to be legitimized and tossed out every time some lunatic goes on a shooting spree on public. But, not as ridiculous as the "well, then we should outlaw cars" argument. Cars are built for transportation. Their primary purpose isn't violence. Sometimes there are accidents and unfortunately people die. When you look at the number of cars on the road vs. the number of deaths, the number is pretty small. And, cars generally can't be used for a murder spree.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost

No, what is devoid of factual content is the argument that gun control laws do not reduce the amount of gun crimes. It is a tired and discredited position that keeps getting pulled out by gun advocates as reasons why we should not start to limit the amount of firearms in the US. What is fact is the overwhelming data that shows fewer guns result in fewer gun crimes and fewer gun deaths. The arguments that unarmed civilians will be overrun by armed thugs is a fantasy that has never played out anywhere in the world. What has happened in places where the number of guns has been reduced is gun crimes have gone down.

"I really want a gun and don't feel safe without one" is not the type of argument on which a society can build itself. And, where does it stop? I'm afraid if I don't have a nuke then only government and terrorists will have one. And remember, nukes don't annihilate cities, kill millions of people and irradiate areas so they are not habitable for decades, people do. In the proper hands of a law abiding citizen, a nuclear weapon is no more dangerous than a butter knife is. So, why can't I have one?

It's an obviously ridiculous argument that somehow has been allowed to be legitimized and tossed out every time some lunatic goes on a shooting spree on public. But, not as ridiculous as the "well, then we should outlaw cars" argument. Cars are built for transportation. Their primary purpose isn't violence. Sometimes there are accidents and unfortunately people die. When you look at the number of cars on the road vs. the number of deaths, the number is pretty small. And, cars generally can't be used for a murder spree.

I have certainly never stated that reducing the number of guns wouldn't reduce the number of gun crimes, gun deaths, etc. That is pretty obvious.
What I do state is that reducing the number of guns does not substantially lower the number of violent crimes, deaths by violence, etc.

But you have not addressed the point I made about types of guns.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(14-08-2012 06:11 AM)Chas Wrote: I have certainly never stated that reducing the number of guns wouldn't reduce the number of gun crimes, gun deaths, etc. That is pretty obvious.
What I do state is that reducing the number of guns does not substantially lower the number of violent crimes, deaths by violence, etc.

Again, total hogwash. You are never going to completely eradicate violent crimes or death by violence but you can't seriously claim that reducing the number of guns is not going to reduce the number of violent crimes or deaths by violence. How else do you explain the proportionately different statistics in violent crimes and death by violent between the US and the rest of the world? Obviously raw numbers are going to vary due to differences in the size of population, but when you break it down to a measurable scale, no one on the planet comes close to the US. Equally, no country on the planet has as many guns as the US. How else are you explaining that correlation? Because Americans, who have no single heritage or unifying culture, are inherently more violent than the rest of the world? I think not.

(14-08-2012 06:11 AM)Chas Wrote: But you have not addressed the point I made about types of guns.

I thought I did in my initial post, but am happy to do so again.

I don't have a problem with guns, per se. I don't agree with outlawing guns altogether. I know people who hunt and people who keep guns in their house for protection (despite that fact that, statistically at least, you or a family member are dramatically more likely to be shot by that gun than an intruder - I mean unbelievably dramatically more likely). What I have an issue with is military style guns where you can fire of hundreds of shots a second and can reload in about 2 seconds. Military style weapons that have no use for hunting or home defense, that have only one real purpose, should not be sold to the general public. You have no legitimate need for an AK47. I could care less about ammo type or barrel length, to me that is a giant red herring. I care about how many shots you can get off in a given unit of time, and how quickly you can reload. How easy is it for you to carry out a Virginia Tech type of massacre. Unless you are trying to argue that an entire military division is breaking into your home, you simply do not need that type of fire power. And, your perceived "right" to have it should not trump the rights of the rest of us to not have to fear for our lives every time some loon on the verge of a psychotic break-down buys these weapons and loads up on 7,000 rounds of ammo he bought mail order. It is insane that we even are debating the legality of this.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost

There have been several studies in the US and they are a mixed bag of results. The problem with the studies, at least in my opinion, is that it is really impossible to get a real sample within the US. For example, a few years ago the city of Chicago put in place tougher gun laws and the immediate impact was violent crimes went up. Pro gun advocates claimed this was proof that if you take guns away from ordinary people, only criminals will have them. In the short term view in Chicago, that was proved to be true. The problem, however, was that Chicago had an isolated gun law that did not extend beyond its immediate boarders. The city of Chicago has no real means of keeping guns purchased (both legally and illegally) from coming into the city. They are a sovereign in the sense they can pass laws that impact their city but they have no jurisdiction over their boarders. So, people can buy guns from all the surrounding areas and bring them into Chicago. A study, under those conditions, is not a real study. New York has put in place some of the toughest gun control laws in the US. The immediate impact was similar to what happened in Chicago but the longer term impacts have been a reduction in the overall amount of violent crime and murders. They got there, they just need to be a little patient. New York City has a similar issue as Chicago in that there are places not that far away where it is much easier to get guns and there is no real way to control their influx into the city, but, with time, they have seen the reduction they were looking for. Not shockingly, you don't see those numbers thrown out by pro gun advocates.

Due to the nature of the US where you have a variety of laws and such ease of moving from place to place, I think any kind of short term study is going to have issues. Even longer term studies may have them, although they do seem to point to the trend about reductions in violence. I personally think a better way to evaluate this is to compare the US to other countries with similar population disbursements, as well as a similar wealth curve, but tighter gun laws and see how that compares. When you look at the US to say, the UK, the differences in violent crime is staggering.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost

(14-08-2012 07:09 AM)BnW Wrote: I thought I did in my initial post, but am happy to do so again.

I don't have a problem with guns, per se. I don't agree with outlawing guns altogether. I know people who hunt and people who keep guns in their house for protection (despite that fact that, statistically at least, you or a family member are dramatically more likely to be shot by that gun than an intruder - I mean unbelievably dramatically more likely). What I have an issue with is military style guns where you can fire of hundreds of shots a second and can reload in about 2 seconds. Military style weapons that have no use for hunting or home defense, that have only one real purpose, should not be sold to the general public. You have no legitimate need for an AK47. I could care less about ammo type or barrel length, to me that is a giant red herring. I care about how many shots you can get off in a given unit of time, and how quickly you can reload. How easy is it for you to carry out a Virginia Tech type of massacre. Unless you are trying to argue that an entire military division is breaking into your home, you simply do not need that type of fire power. And, your perceived "right" to have it should not trump the rights of the rest of us to not have to fear for our lives every time some loon on the verge of a psychotic break-down buys these weapons and loads up on 7,000 rounds of ammo he bought mail order. It is insane that we even are debating the legality of this.

As I said, and you obviously misunderstood, my hunting rifle and my "military style" rifle can fire the same bullets at the same rate. It is not a question of what the weapon looks like, it is what it can do. So "military style" is a red herring.

Number of rounds and rate of fire are important for self defense.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(14-08-2012 07:23 AM)BnW Wrote: There have been several studies in the US and they are a mixed bag of results. The problem with the studies, at least in my opinion, is that it is really impossible to get a real sample within the US. For example, a few years ago the city of Chicago put in place tougher gun laws and the immediate impact was violent crimes went up. Pro gun advocates claimed this was proof that if you take guns away from ordinary people, only criminals will have them. In the short term view in Chicago, that was proved to be true. The problem, however, was that Chicago had an isolated gun law that did not extend beyond its immediate boarders. The city of Chicago has no real means of keeping guns purchased (both legally and illegally) from coming into the city. They are a sovereign in the sense they can pass laws that impact their city but they have no jurisdiction over their boarders. So, people can buy guns from all the surrounding areas and bring them into Chicago. A study, under those conditions, is not a real study. New York has put in place some of the toughest gun control laws in the US. The immediate impact was similar to what happened in Chicago but the longer term impacts have been a reduction in the overall amount of violent crime and murders. They got there, they just need to be a little patient. New York City has a similar issue as Chicago in that there are places not that far away where it is much easier to get guns and there is no real way to control their influx into the city, but, with time, they have seen the reduction they were looking for. Not shockingly, you don't see those numbers thrown out by pro gun advocates.

Due to the nature of the US where you have a variety of laws and such ease of moving from place to place, I think any kind of short term study is going to have issues. Even longer term studies may have them, although they do seem to point to the trend about reductions in violence. I personally think a better way to evaluate this is to compare the US to other countries with similar population disbursements, as well as a similar wealth curve, but tighter gun laws and see how that compares. When you look at the US to say, the UK, the differences in violent crime is staggering.

And what about Switzerland?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(14-08-2012 06:11 AM)Chas Wrote: I have certainly never stated that reducing the number of guns wouldn't reduce the number of gun crimes, gun deaths, etc. That is pretty obvious.
What I do state is that reducing the number of guns does not substantially lower the number of violent crimes, deaths by violence, etc.

Again, total hogwash. You are never going to completely eradicate violent crimes or death by violence but you can't seriously claim that reducing the number of guns is not going to reduce the number of violent crimes or deaths by violence. How else do you explain the proportionately different statistics in violent crimes and death by violent between the US and the rest of the world? Obviously raw numbers are going to vary due to differences in the size of population, but when you break it down to a measurable scale, no one on the planet comes close to the US. Equally, no country on the planet has as many guns as the US. How else are you explaining that correlation? Because Americans, who have no single heritage or unifying culture, are inherently more violent than the rest of the world? I think not.

Let's get the statistics and avoid the bombast.

In every state that enacted what are collectively called "shall issue" and concealed carry laws, the violent crime rate dropped. Every one.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.